[cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Gervase Markham via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> On 05/02/18 15:04, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote:
> > I expressed concern about running other WGs in parallel with VWG since I
> > participate in all of them, but I can withdraw my objection with respect
> > to the Governance WG if that helps.
>
> I think that having the Governance WG meeting on a plenary day is an
> excellent idea, as it will leave nowhere to hide for people with
> "late-breaking" additional feedback.
>
> In fact, if I were advising the Governance WG, this is what I would
> suggest they state:
>
> "The documents as they emerge from the F2F will be balloted immediately
> following the end of the meeting, in that state. Therefore, if you still
> think further improvements are required, you should come to the
> Governance WG meeting on <plenary day> with a clear explanation of the
> problem, concrete proposed textual changes, and a willingness to argue
> your case. A decision will be made there and then."
>
> We need to get this stuff balloted; we can't tweak it for ever. If the
> ballot fails, then we can move to another round of feedback. If not, we
> can always fix small things in follow-up ballots.
>
>
Respectfully, I think this is a somewhat terrible idea, as shown by every
time the Forum has done something like this.

I appreciate the sentiment towards getting it out, but I also think it's
worth highlighting that the failure to carefully review things - or to
allow time for that - especially for something as significant as an
IP-affecting change - has consistently harmed the overall productivity of
the Forum.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180205/be60e51a/attachment.html>